4.  The applicant was born in 1976 and lives in Rybnik.
5.  On 24 October 2002 he was arrested and charged with armed robbery. On 26 October 2002 the Rybnik District Court remanded the applicant in custody on reasonable suspicion that he had committed armed robbery. The District Court had particular regard to evidence provided by an anonymous witness. It also held that the need to secure the proper conduct of the proceedings justified the applicant's detention, given the severity of the anticipated penalty. It further considered that there was a reasonable risk that the applicant would interfere with the proceedings.
6.  On 26 November 2002 the Gliwice Regional Court upheld the detention order.
7.  On 14 January 2003 the Gliwice Regional Court prolonged the applicant's detention until 22 April 2003. It relied on the same grounds as originally invoked. It added that since new witnesses were being sought the investigation could not be completed within three months.
8.  The applicant appealed against that decision. He submitted that the evidence in the case was insufficient to charge him with armed robbery and contested the Regional Court's finding that he would obstruct the proceedings.
9.  On 19 February 2003 the Katowice Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant's appeal. It found that the circumstances of the case and the evidence gathered to date did not give substance to the risk that the applicant would obstruct the proceedings. However, it concurred with the Regional Court that the reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed the offence in question and the severity of the anticipated penalty justified his detention.
10.  In the meantime, on 6 February 2003 the applicant was additionally charged with incitement to armed robbery.
11.  On 4 April 2003 the prosecution made a severance order with a view to expediting the proceedings, and thereafter one of the three suspects was to be tried separately.
12.  On 7 April 2003 the prosecution filed a bill of indictment with the Gliwice Regional Court against the applicant and one of his accomplices. The applicant was charged with armed robbery and incitement to armed robbery.
13.  On 15 April 2003 the Regional Court ordered that the applicant be held in custody until 22 October 2003. That decision was upheld on appeal on 14 May 2003.
14.  On 18 June 2003 the applicant unsuccessfully requested the trial court to refer the case back to the prosecution with a view to supplementing the evidence.
15.  On 14 October 2003 the Regional Court extended the applicant's detention until 22 January 2004. It found that there was a reasonable risk that the applicant would interfere with the proceedings, having regard to the nature of the charges and the severity of the anticipated penalty. On the same date the trial court released the applicant's co-accused under police supervision. It noted that the co-accused, unlike the applicant, had pleaded guilty and had made full statements. Thus, in the court's view, the co-accused's release was justified on account of the above considerations and the fact that there was no risk that he would obstruct the proceedings. That decision was upheld on appeal on 12 November 2003.
16.  On 20 January 2004 the trial court ordered that the applicant be held in custody until 22 April 2004. In addition to the grounds previously invoked, it noted that the trial could not be terminated earlier due to the volume of evidence to be heard. On 11 February 2004 the Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant's appeal against the prolongation of his detention. It found that the applicant had been charged with offences which attracted a statutory maximum sentence of 15 years' imprisonment.
17.  On 17 March 2004 the trial court prolonged the applicant's detention until 22 July 2004. It relied on the same grounds as given previously. In addition, it found that other preventive measures would not be sufficient to secure the proper conduct of the proceedings.
18.  The trial court held some 11 hearings. Hearings scheduled for 30 July and 19 November 2003 were adjourned since the applicant had not been brought to court by the police.
19. At the last hearing the prosecutor requested the trial court to convict the applicant as charged and to sentence him to 7 years' imprisonment. On 26 May 2004 the Regional Court convicted the applicant of armed robbery and sentenced him to 8 years' imprisonment. The applicant appealed against that judgment.
20.  He remained in detention pending his appeal.
21.  On 16 December 2004 the Katowice Court of Appeal quashed the first-instance judgment and remitted the case. It found that the trial court had incorrectly assessed the evidence, in particular that adduced by the defence. Furthermore, the trial court had heard the anonymous witness without providing the applicant with an opportunity to put questions to him and to comment on his evidence, thus manifestly vitiating the rights of the defence. The Court of Appeal also had reservations about classifying the act committed by the applicant as armed robbery. It gave the Regional Court specific instructions concerning the evidence to be heard in the course of the retrial. Lastly, the Court of Appeal noted that in view of the applicant's lengthy detention, the Regional Court should fix the date of the hearing as soon as practicable.
22.  On 23 March 2005 the Regional Court ordered that the applicant be kept in detention until 30 June 2005. On 15 June 2005 it prolonged his detention until 31 July 2005. During the retrial the Regional Court held about 12 hearings.
23.  On 29 July 2005 the Regional Court convicted the applicant of robbery, and not of armed robbery as in its first judgment, and sentenced him to 5 years' imprisonment. The applicant and the prosecution appealed against this judgment.
24.  It appears that the applicant was released on bail on 2 August 2005.
25.  On 19 January 2006 the Katowice Court of Appeal upheld the Regional Court's judgment. On some later unspecified date the applicant began to serve his sentence.
26.  During the trial and the retrial the applicant filed a number of unsuccessful applications for release on bail.